IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 19.10.2023 Date of hearing: 11.07.2024 Date of Decision: 31.07.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 560/2023 IN THE MATTER OF:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE-I, 18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, 8^TH FLOOR, KACHENJUNGA BUILDING, NEW DELHI- 110001.

(Through: Maibam N. Singh, Advocate)

.... Appellant VERSUS MR. ASHIF ALI KHAN, S/O MR. BABAR ALI, R/O C-12/7, BLOCK – C-12, YAMUNA VIHAR, EAST DELHI, DELHI – 110053.

(Through: Mr. Mohd. Firoz)

.... Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Maibam N. Singh counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mohd. Firoz and Mr Love, counsel for the Respondent PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The Present Appeal has been preferred by the Opposite Party/Appellant impugning the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 196/2017 titled Ashif Ali Khan vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the defense of the Appellant was struck off for failure to file the written statement within the stipulated period.

2. The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the previous counsel engaged by the Appellant Insurance Company failed to appear before District Commission on 27.05.2022. The reason for absence of the previous counsel was due to the demise of the previous counsel appearing for the Appellant namely i.e., Mr. Malkiat Singh and the same was not informed to the appellant, therefore, no steps were taken by the Appellant. The counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant immediately after knowing the death of the previous counsel without wasting any time had appointed a new counsel and has preferred the present appeal. Therefore, delay in filing the written statement was neither intentional or deliberately on part of the Appellant. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed that the Impugned Order dated 27.05.2023 be set aside.

3. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the defense of the Appellant was already struck off by the District Commission on 01.10.2019.

4. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

5. The main question for consideration before us is whether the impugned order dated 27.05.2022, passed by the District Commission, is suffering from any infirmity?

6. To deal with the present issue involved in the matter, it is imperative to refer to the order dated 27.03.2022 passed by the District Commission, whereby it held as under:

“Defence of OP struck off Be listed on 23.09.2022, at request of Complainant as his counsel is not available.

7. Reverting to the material on record, it is evident from the orders dated

30.09.2021 and 14.03.2022 that the District Commission struck off the defense of the Appellant on 01.10.2019 and the matter was further listed for argument. Therefore, it is clear that the District Commission only mentioned the position of the defense of the Appellant in the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 as the defense of the Appellant was already struck off by the District Commission on 01.10.2019.

8. Further, the counsel for the Appellant submitted that the previous counsel appearing for the Appellant namely, Mr. Malkiat Singh had passed away and the death of the counsel was not informed to the Appellant, therefore, no steps were taken by the Appellant. However, the Appellant failed to disclose the date, month, or even year of the death of its previous counsel as the defense was already struck off in year 2019. Moreover, the Appellant did not provide any evidence to show that the delay was caused due to the demise of the previous counsel. Additionally, the Appellant also failed to disclose when the notice along with the copy of the complaint was received and when the written statement was suppose